By: GZ on Martedì 03 Febbraio 2004 02:35
era praticamente impossibile che vincessero
i Carolina Panthers, i Patriots li schiacciavano
dall'inizio e hanno questo quarterback infallibile
tom brady per cui come probabilita' e' da un pezzo
che si sapeva che l'indicatore avrebbe dato un sell
Comunque finora i Patriots non hanno mai sbagliato,
ogni volta che hanno vinto la borsa quell'anno ha perso
In Theory, the Bears (Huh?) Won Super Bowl XXXVIII*
By FLOYD NORRIS
February 3, 2004
Dam Vinatieri's field goal with seconds left in the Super Bowl did more than end the Carolina Panthers' hopes of the biggest comeback in Super Bowl history. It also sounded a death knell for the bull market.
At least it did for anyone who believes in what only a few years ago was among the most widely watched, if least respected, stock market forecasts: the Super Bowl theory.
That theory holds that the market is in trouble in years when a team from the old American Football League, like the New England Patriots, wins the game. But rising prices are to be expected when a team from the old National Football League wins the title. What matters is not which conference a team represents, but which league it was in before the 1966 merger of the two leagues that enabled the Super Bowl to begin being played.
That theory was developed in the days before expansion, and so it had no obvious message about last year's game, in which the Tampa Bay Buccaneers overwhelmed the Oakland Raiders. But now that we know the stock market was poised to rally sharply, it is clear that expansion teams should be viewed based on the conference they represent. So chalk up the bull market of the past year, in which the Dow Jones industrial average rose 29 percent from Super Bowl to Super Bowl, as a vindication of the theory.
The Super Bowl forecast also did well in 2002, when Mr. Vinatieri kicked his other last-minute winner and led the Patriots over the St. Louis Rams. Sure enough, the Dow was 17.9 percent lower when the next Super Bowl rolled around.
Over all, the Super Bowl indicator's record in forecasting the direction of the stock market over the following year now stands as 29 right and 8 wrong, a 78 percent success rate that probably compares well with any human forecaster you know.
Of course, it is true that the Super Bowl theory has been tweaked over the years to keep its record good, with the discovery about expansion teams being merely the latest example.
And it is also true that the Super Bowl theory quite recently was wrong for four years in a row. In 1998 and 1999, the Denver Broncos, an old American Football League franchise, won the bowl and wrongly forecast a bear market. Then in 2000 and 2001, franchises from the old National Football League prevailed, but share prices still fell.
The Patriots, however, have never been wrong. They first reached the Super Bowl in 1986, only to suffer one of the worst losses in Super Bowl history, falling 46-10 to the Chicago Bears. That forecast a good year for the stock market, and, sure enough, the Dow rose 37.4 percent from then until the next Super Bowl.
Measured from Super Bowl to Super Bowl, that was the second-best year ever for the Dow, behind the 41.1 percent rise after the 1975 Super Bowl. That rebound, after the worst bear market since the Depression, was foreshadowed by a Super Bowl pitting two former National Football League franchises, Pittsburgh and Minnesota. The two previous bad years for stocks had followed victories by the Miami Dolphins of the old American Football League.
With their next loss, in 1997, the Patriots backed the bull market. The Patriots' third visit to the big game was two years ago. Their victory forecast that the bear market, which most Wall Street seers felt was almost over, would continue for another year. And it did, with that year being one of the worst in memory for stocks. Now the Patriots have won again, providing a bearish warning.
Of course, no one who takes such an indicator seriously should be allowed to manage money. But that won't stop Wall Streeters from citing the game's result if the next year should be a bad one for the market.